OV9

unzippy wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:47 am

mik wrote: Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:22 am No, not all dead.

Everybody cycles everywhere.

1. Why do 76% of the bikes look like they were designed in the 1960s? Edit: make that 1940’s

It makes a lot more sense for commuting in town, it's safer. That 'sit up and beg' style of riding means you can see so much more, rather than the head down MAMILs.
If more people in London rode upright bikes, I'm sure there would be less squashed cyclists.

Given the recent incident I had when I was half turned into a narrow side road, slowed to let another car exit said road, at which point a cyclist (no helmet, naturally) came right up the inside of the car and turned left into the same road moving into the space I turned across less than 2 seconds later... probably not.

Some cyclists just ride like total morons or have an incredibly low level of road awareness. The climate of cyclists can do no wrong and nutcase 'cycle-activists' in London give them an added feeling that they're basically infallible.

Why is the lack of a helmet relevant to a cyclist riding like a dick?

And another interpretation of your post is that you turned left and nearly hit a cyclist who was quite legitimately turning left also. Presumably you had to cross the cycle lane? Maybe he interpreted you slowing as allowing him space because he was already on your left.

In Holland, you have to give way to cyclists coming up from behind you as you’re turning. They also automatically assume the car is at fault if there’s a bike/car collision. I remember my Dutch boss telling me “if you have a car crash with a bike, you’re fucked. Don’t do it”. The Dutch also have insurance for everything so it all ends up being fought in court.

If you ever see anyone wearing a cycle helmet in Amsterdam, I’d bet a fiver they’re American.

One of our neighbours when we lived there was a child minder. She rode a bakfiets (box bike) with 6 kids in the box, one on a seat on the crossbar and one on a child seat behind her plus all the bags and everything. They’re surprisingly easy to ride, even with all that weight.

On the subject of flatness, it wasn’t unusual to see people stop and get of their bikes to push them up some of the very rare canal bridges with a slight ramp

Jobbo wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:08 pm Why is the lack of a helmet relevant to a cyclist riding like a dick?

And another interpretation of your post is that you turned left and nearly hit a cyclist who was quite legitimately turning left also. Presumably you had to cross the cycle lane? Maybe he interpreted you slowing as allowing him space because he was already on your left.

Because it suggested a lack of interest in his own wellbeing that was subsequently evidenced by his dangerous cycling.

There was no cycle lane. He didn't interpret anything. He was miles behind me when I started to turn left and then had to stop to give way. He then saw me stopped as an opportunity to squeeze between me and the kerb and cut in front because he didn't want to wait behind and go through safely afterwards. I was already mid-maneuver and half in the road I was turning in to.

If you'd have seen it you'd appreciate what I mean - there really isn't any room for debate. I just feel sorry for the person that eventually squashes people riding like this and as Rev notes, ends up with an awkward conversation with the police or worse, in court.

Plenty of room for debate - if there was space for him to come past, I imagine you saw him and let him past.

As for the helmet reference, I don’t get it. Would it have protected him if you’d knocked him off? That’d be ok, would it?

NotoriousREV wrote: Thu Sep 06, 2018 1:35 pm
If you ever see anyone wearing a cycle helmet in Amsterdam, I’d bet a fiver they’re American.

Do you if that is still the case? Used to be the same in Denmark, but it has changed quite a bit since I left.

There was a big debate about helmets when the Boris Bike was introduced. There were thoughts about putting free recyclable cardboard helmets then they looked at some old research and found that helmets make no difference and actually result in an increased likelihood of death.
It reminded me of this story in MB World about when Mercedes rolled out ESC on the E class and they expected the new E class taxis in Germany to be involved in fewer accidents because of it but for the first few years they had more crashes as the taxi drivers took more risks.

Mito Man wrote: Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:55 am There were thoughts about putting free recyclable cardboard helmets then they looked at some old research and found that helmets make no difference and actually result in an increased likelihood of death.

Link to bizarre conclusion please.

I guess as he went on to say - people were taking more risks because helmet, but helmet no worky.

Because cardboard

I'm all for freedom of choice but there really isn't a good reason not to wear one...

I'll admit to not always wearing a helmet around town even though I'm very conscientious about wearing it when I'm out in the hills. It's just laziness/not wanting to have to carry the helmet around if I leave the bike somewhere, which is dumb.

A helmet saved my life once when I was a kid. There's a hill in the Pentlands near where I grew up that has an MOD firing range, it has these wide dirt roads going up to it that are very good for high speed races with your pals. I went off one of these roads onto a steep slope and smashed my head off a rock. I walked (well staggered) away with a concussion, probably would've fractured my skull if I hadn't been wearing a helmet.

I started wearing a helmet because I wanted my kids to wear theirs. Didn’t wear one as a kid and broke a few bones MB’ing, but no head injuries thankfully. /twitch

mik wrote: Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:07 am

Mito Man wrote: Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:55 am There were thoughts about putting free recyclable cardboard helmets then they looked at some old research and found that helmets make no difference and actually result in an increased likelihood of death.

Link to bizarre conclusion please.

Here’s one
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/active/ ... uries.html

There are numerous studies that seem to 'prove' that you're worse off wearing a helmet on a bicycle than not wearing one. Common sense tells me otherwise though and having split 2 helmets, one pretty much in half in crashes there's no way I'd go on a proper ride* without one. The time I split the helmet in half was on a mountain road in Spain where I headbutted a mountain at what must have been about 40mph because I misjudged a hairpin and went in much too fast. The helmet split and amongst other minor injuries had a large lump and bruise on my head and probably concussion (I self-medicated in the bar). Common sense tells me the helmet absorbed some of the impact that otherwise would have transferred to my skull which may well have made the outcome more severe.

*ie if I'm ridng my BMX to the pub, I won't wear a lid. If I'm on the mountain bike launching it off gap jumps or on a road bike doing 50mph I obviously will.

Pretty sure that if I fall of my bike and spong my head off the ground I will be better off in a helmet? The study doesn't address this as far as I can tell from the article anyway.

Similar studies have shown similar results for things like hi-viz: wearing hi-viz doesn't appear to reduce accident rates, the theory being that people wearing hi-viz assume people can see them and therefore ride less defensively.

But, and I think this is really important to understand, individual outcomes are more important than statistical ones.

Similarly to tales above, when that gazelle clattered into me on the cycle track when I was doing 40 kph or so, and I landed pretty much on my head, the helmet that split in two probably saved my life. So that's that.

Yes. Also the amount of people whose helmets arent properly fitted to their heads is high. Hence protection offered is compromised...

Yes, I reckon helmets save lives. However, don’t add any mounts for a go-pro etc as I believe that was a significant factor in the brain damage caused by Michael Schumacher’s accident.